EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:49 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

natural causes for a minimum of an undisclosed amount of the recent oceanic warming should not be excluded.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:17 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

natural causes for a minimum of an undiscloded amount of the recent oceanic warming should not be excluded.


Do you agree that there could be more than 'some' of the ocean warming being natural? That is what 'at least' means.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:20 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:


I asked for the reference in the context of the ocean warming debunking the GHG forcing, which we see was not the case.



The GHG forcing was never said to be 'debunked...' just not that important for climate change.

Quote:
No, the "at least" does not make such a statement. It says at a minimum an undetermined portion of the warming should not be excluded from consideration as being natural.


At least means at the very minimum. It does not state at the very maximum. Being at the very minimum means that there can be values higher than the minimum.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


I asked for the reference in the context of the ocean warming debunking the GHG forcing, which we see was not the case.



The GHG forcing was never said to be 'debunked...' just not that important for climate change.


The GHGs are not required and a fingerprint for the forcing was debunked. If the GHGs are not required the forcing would by definition be debunked.

Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It is putting words into their mouths. The paper was not on the subject of natural contribution or not, the statement is clearly a passing caveat on the subject slightly touching on the actual subject, and the "elaboration" is semantical gymnastics worthy of the Olympics which goes so far passed the normal and customary in the inclusion of all that could be considered if the reader really wanted to add it. The author would be the one to make such an elaboration given there is nothing else in the paper from which to draw a conclusion. The statement is clear English which does not need expansion or elaboration because it is not intended to be taken in the context by which you have chosen to add. That is not scientific, not ethical, and not like you at all.


Their study was the oceans can account for the land warming, and GHGs are not required, debunking a fingerprint that GHGs should cause landmasses to warm faster than the oceans. This was their research goal in this paper, and they stated that the oceans could have been warmed by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors (though it was not the subject they were researching).

It is implied that there is still uncertainty with how much of the oceanic warming is anthropogenic and natural as stated here:

"Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation"



Quote:
Quote:
No, the "at least" does not make such a statement. It says at a minimum an undetermined portion of the warming should not be excluded from consideration as being natural.


At least means at the very minimum. It does not state at the very maximum. Being at the very minimum means that there can be values higher than the minimum.


The value is by definition UNDETERMINED by the term "some" and the phrase "at least" references the level of exclusion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

natural causes for a minimum of an undiscloded amount of the recent oceanic warming should not be excluded.


Do you agree that there could be more than 'some' of the ocean warming being natural? That is what 'at least' means.


More than an undisclosed amount? How does that work? The "at least" references the level exclusion not the amount.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The GHGs are not required and a fingerprint for the forcing was debunked. If the GHGs are not required the forcing would by definition be debunked.


Not really, it just means that they are not the primary driver.

Quote:
The value is by definition UNDETERMINED by the term "some" and the phrase "at least" references the level of exclusion.


Undetermined=Uncertain.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 3:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

More than an undisclosed amount? How does that work?


It could be more, because at least is the minimum. Do you agree that natural factors could play a larger role than some of the warming observed?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 4:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The GHGs are not required and a fingerprint for the forcing was debunked. If the GHGs are not required the forcing would by definition be debunked.


Not really, it just means that they are not the primary driver.


"Not required" and "debunked" do not indicate a non-primary anything, but they do indicate a non-enitity condition.

Quote:
Quote:
The value is by definition UNDETERMINED by the term "some" and the phrase "at least" references the level of exclusion.


Undetermined=Uncertain.


Yes, the readers are uncertain of the quantity because it is not given, but that is not the same as there being evidence of any level of uncertainty in the paper because of the mention in passing.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 4:20 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

More than an undisclosed amount? How does that work?


It could be more, because at least is the minimum.


That makes no sense. It could be any amount as it is not specified. The "at least" does not refer to the amount of variation but to the exclusion process.

Quote:
Do you agree that natural factors could play a larger role than some of the warming observed?


A larger role than what? Than zero, possibly. Than 99%, no.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, the readers are uncertain of the quantity because it is not given, but that is not the same as there being evidence of any level of uncertainty in the paper because of the mention in passing.


So it is uncertain because it is undetermined, and the amount natural and anthropogenic have contributed is still up in the air.

Okay, now we can move on.

Let's look at this paper which also finds a strong relationship between Cosmic Rays and precipitation over the timeframe from 1979-1999 (which is approximately the timeframe at which we warmed in the late-20th Century)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2 ... 2536.shtml

This paper evaluates whether there is empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that solar variability is linked to the Earth's climate through the modulation of atmospheric precipitation processes. Using global data from 1979–1999, we find evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux (CRF), precipitation (P) and precipitation efficiency (PE) over ocean surfaces at mid to high latitudes. Both P and PE are shown to vary by 7–9% during the solar cycle of the 1980s over the latitude band 45–90°S. Alternative explanations of the variation in these atmospheric parameters by changes in tropospheric aerosol content and ENSO show poorer statistical relationships with P and PE. Variations in P and PE potentially caused by changes in CRF have implications for the understanding of cloud and water vapour feedbacks.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

A larger role than what? Than zero, possibly. Than 99%, no.


Larger than 50%.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, the readers are uncertain of the quantity because it is not given, but that is not the same as there being evidence of any level of uncertainty in the paper because of the mention in passing.


So it is uncertain because it is undetermined, and the amount natural and anthropogenic have contributed is still up in the air.


No, it is uncertain BECAUSE THEY GAVE NO SPECIFIC AMOUNT in the paper. If you try to claim there is some level of uncertainty in the amount of contribution to this paper is is a blatent misrepresentation of the truth.

Quote:
Okay, now we can move on.


As long as "moving on" means you cease to misrepresent the author's statements.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

A larger role than what? Than zero, possibly. Than 99%, no.


Larger than 50%.


You should have stated it as such in the first place. Probably not larger than 50% for the more recent period.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:42 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:

Let's look at this paper which also finds a strong relationship between Cosmic Rays and precipitation over the timeframe from 1979-1999 (which is approximately the timeframe at which we warmed in the late-20th Century)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2 ... 2536.shtml

This paper evaluates whether there is empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that solar variability is linked to the Earth's climate through the modulation of atmospheric precipitation processes. Using global data from 1979–1999, we find evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux (CRF), precipitation (P) and precipitation efficiency (PE) over ocean surfaces at mid to high latitudes. Both P and PE are shown to vary by 7–9% during the solar cycle of the 1980s over the latitude band 45–90°S. Alternative explanations of the variation in these atmospheric parameters by changes in tropospheric aerosol content and ENSO show poorer statistical relationships with P and PE. Variations in P and PE potentially caused by changes in CRF have implications for the understanding of cloud and water vapour feedbacks.



http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~mtodd/paper ... _total.pdf

The results suggest that variability in cosmic ray flux is a possible explanation of the
observed inter-annual variability in precipitation efficiency and precipitation in the southern
hemisphere mid and high latitude region. Of course, these statistical results do not prove a
causal relationship between the variables
.


and

Finally, certain caveats must be attached to interpretation of the results presented here. First, due to limitations in global observations of precipitation our study is based on data from a relatively short period. Second, errors in the data used are not uniform in space and time and are likely to be highest over the mid to high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. Third,
although we have tried to assess other possible influences on PE and P variability there
remains the possibility of other explanations of the observations.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:46 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, it is uncertain BECAUSE THEY GAVE NO SPECIFIC AMOUNT in the paper. If you try to claim there is some level of uncertainty in the amount of contribution to this paper is is a blatent misrepresentation of the truth.



Right, they state that researchers are still actively investigating the causes of the recent oceanic warming, which implies that it is still an open question as to whether climate change is mostly anthropogenic or natural.

Quote:
As long as "moving on" means you cease to misrepresent the author's statements.


I think this argument has gone in circles, and is pointless, so I can agree to stop this pointless argument.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group